Many states across the country have stood idly by while inflation and improving vehicle fuel efficiency have cut into their gas tax revenues, reducing their ability to build and maintain an adequate transportation network.  Fortunately, new developments in at least four states demonstrate an increasing level of interest in addressing the transportation problem head-on.

In Arkansas this week, a state panel created by the legislature endorsed increasing taxes on motor fuels, and taking steps to ensure that such taxes can provide a sustainable source of revenue over time.  Specifically, the panel expressed an interest in linking the tax rate to the annual “Construction Cost Index,” a measure of the inflation in construction commodity prices.  As the committee chairman explained, this method would provide a revenue stream better suited to helping the state maintain a consistent level of purchasing power over time. 

Wisely, the proposal would also ensure that fuel tax rates would not increase by more than 2 cents per gallon in any given year.  Such a limitation should help to prevent the types of political outcries that have surfaced in other states when indexed gas taxes have increased by large amounts in a single year.

In Texas, attention has begun to turn toward a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) tax which, as its name suggests, would tax drivers based on the number of miles they travel.  Such a tax is similar to a gas tax in that it makes the users of roadways pay for their continued maintenance.  VMT’s, however, are able to avoid some of the most serious long-run revenue problems associated with gas taxes, since their yield is not eroded as individuals switch to more fuel efficient vehicles.  But Texas Senator John Carona hit the nail on the head in his description of the VMT as an idea “far into the future and way ahead of its time.”  While states like Texas should begin studying this option now, they should also follow Carona’s lead in the meantime by embracing an increase in motor fuel tax rates to address the funding problem already at their doorsteps.

Nebraska legislators have also begun discussing the need for additional transportation dollars.  In a report outlining the testimony given at eight hearings conducted last fall by the Legislature’s Transportation and Telecommunications Committee, 31 separate options for raising transportation revenues are examined.  Among those options are an increase in the gas tax and indexing the tax either to inflation or directly to the costs associated with the continued maintenance and construction of the state’s transportation network.  As the report explains, “there was nearly unanimous support from all testifiers for some type of tax or fee increase to support the highway system.”  Committee Chairwoman and State Senator Deb Fischer expects to have a major highway-funding bill ready for the 2011 legislative session.

Finally, legislators in Kansas this week also pushed forward with proposals to enhance the sustainability and adequacy of their transportation revenue streams.  A joint House-Senate transportation committee advanced two options for raising motor fuel tax collections: (1) applying the state sales tax to fuel purchases and slightly lowering the ordinary fuel tax rate, and (2) raising the fuel tax rate and indexing it to inflation.  While either proposal would be a great improvement to Kansas' stagnant, flat cents-per-gallon gas tax, the inflation-indexed approach would provide a somewhat more predictable revenue stream since its yield would not be contingent upon the (often volatile) price of gasoline.

In addition to these four states, we have also highlighted stories out of South Dakota and Mississippi during the latter half of 2009 that indicated a similar interest in doing something constructive to enhance current transportation funding streams.  And more beneficial debate has occurred in a number of states where progressives have insisted on offsetting the regressive effects of transportation-related tax hikes by enhancing low-income refundable credits.

Virginia is one of the major exceptions to the trend toward a more rational transportation funding debate.  As the Washington Post explained in an editorial this week, “[Governor-elect Robert McDonnell’s] transportation plan, which ruled out new taxes, relied on made-up numbers and wishful thinking to arrive at its promise of new funding.”  Rather than acknowledging the futility of attempting to fund a 21st century transportation infrastructure with a gasoline tax that hasn’t been altered since 1987, McDonnell worked to repeatedly block attempts to raise the gas tax during his time in the state’s legislature. 

Following the leads of policymakers in Arkansas, Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, and Mississippi and keeping higher taxes on the table is absolutely essential to the construction and maintenance of an adequate transportation system.  As the Washington Post cynically suggests, new revenue is so desperately needed that McDonnell should even be forgiven if he has to rebrand new taxes as “user fees” in order to get around his irresponsible campaign promise not to raise taxes.

This week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in partnership with state groups in forty-one states, released the 3rd edition of “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.”  The report found that, by an overwhelming margin, most states tax their middle- and low-income families far more heavily than the wealthy.  The response has been overwhelming.

In Michigan, The Detroit Free Press hit the nail on the head: “There’s nothing even remotely fair about the state’s heaviest tax burden falling on its least wealthy earners.  It’s also horrible public policy, given the hard hit that middle and lower incomes are taking in the state’s brutal economic shift.  And it helps explain why the state is having trouble keeping up with funding needs for its most vital services.  The study provides important context for the debate about how to fix Michigan’s finances and shows how far the state really has to go before any cries of ‘unfairness’ to wealthy earners can be taken seriously.”

In addition, the Governor’s office in Michigan responded by reiterating Gov. Granholm’s support for a graduated income tax.  Currently, Michigan is among a minority of states levying a flat rate income tax.

Media in Virginia also explained the study’s importance.  The Augusta Free Press noted: “If you believe the partisan rhetoric, it’s the wealthy who bear the tax burden, and who are deserving of tax breaks to get the economy moving.  A new report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the Virginia Organizing Project puts the rhetoric in a new light.”

In reference to Tennessee’s rank among the “Terrible Ten” most regressive state tax systems in the nation, The Commercial Appeal ran the headline: “A Terrible Decision.”  The “terrible decision” to which the Appeal is referring is the choice by Tennessee policymakers to forgo enacting a broad-based income tax by instead “[paying] the state’s bills by imposing the country’s largest combination of state and local sales taxes and maintaining the sales tax on food.”

In Texas, The Dallas Morning News ran with the story as well, explaining that “Texas’ low-income residents bear heavier tax burdens than their counterparts in all but four other states.”  The Morning News article goes on to explain the study’s finding that “the media and elected officials often refer to states such as Texas as “low-tax” states without considering who benefits the most within those states.”  Quoting the ITEP study, the Morning News then points out that “No-income-tax states like Washington, Texas and Florida do, in fact, have average to low taxes overall.  Can they also be considered low-tax states for poor families?  Far from it.”

Talk of the study has quickly spread everywhere from Florida to Nevada, and from Maryland to Montana.  Over the coming months, policymakers will need to keep the findings of Who Pays? in mind if they are to fill their states’ budget gaps with responsible and fair revenue solutions.

As state policymakers craft their budgets for the upcoming fiscal year, they must confront a pair of daunting challenges, one fiscal, the other economic. The budget outlook for the states is, at present, the most dire in several decades. In this context, then, states must find ways to generate additional revenue that create neither additional responsibilities for individuals and families struggling to make ends meet nor additional distortions in the economy as a whole.

For nine states -- Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin -- one straightforward approach would be to repeal the substantial tax breaks that they now provide for income from capital gains. In tax year 2008 alone, these nine states are expected to lose a total of $663 million due to such misguided policies, with individual losses ranging from $10 million to $285 million per state. A new ITEP report explains that repealing these tax preferences would help states reduce their large and growing budgetary gaps, enhance the equity of their current tax systems, and remove the economic inefficiencies arising from such favorable treatment.

This report explains what capital gains are, how they are treated for tax purposes, and who typically receives them. It also details the consequences of providing preferential tax treatment for capital gains income for states' budgets, taxpayers, and economies in nine key states. Lastly, it responds to claims about both the relationship between capital gains preferences and economic growth and the role capital gains taxation plays in state revenue volatility. (Appendices to the report provide detailed state-by-state estimates of the impact of repealing capital gains tax preferences.)

Read the report.

Arizona voters wisely rejected Proposition 105, a proposal that would have placed a nearly insurmountable obstacle in the way of Arizona residents seeking to raise their own taxes through the referendum process.

Arkansas voters approved a measure to institute a state lottery. While the state could certainly use the additional revenue, Arkansans should be wary of funding their government through regressive revenue sources such as the lottery.

Maine residents rejected an increase in the alcohol and soda taxes to fund health care. While it's certainly a bad thing that these taxes are regressive (as well as unlikely to exhibit sustainable growth in the coming years), the ludicrousness of the fervent opposition this relatively minor tax created can be read about in this Digest article and this blog post.

Maryland residents also decided to secure additional revenues for their government via expanded gambling, in the form of 15,000 new slot machines. Check out this Digest article to learn about some of the problems with this proposal.

Missouri also attempted to increase its haul from gambling. Increased gambling taxes and the elimination of limitations on the amount of money one is allowed to lose were approved by voters this Tuesday. This Digest article explains how the proposal leaves much to be desired.

Minnesota voters decided to go through with a 3/8ths percent sales tax hike. While the environmental causes to which the funds will be dedicated are undoubtedly worthy, the regressive way in which voters decided to go about funding the projects (through the sales tax) is far from ideal.

Nevada residents voted to amend their constitution to require that all new sales and property tax exemptions be subjected to a benefit-cost analysis, and accompanied by a sunset provision that will force their reexamination in the future. While the proposal sounds good in theory, its requirements are relatively loose in practice. It will be up to Nevadans to carefully watch their representatives to ensure that the spirit of this law is adhered to. Learn more about this proposal here.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius this week again voiced support for a 50 cent cigarette tax hike, proposing that the revenue be dedicated to expanding health care coverage to more low-income Kansans. This story should sound familiar, as numerous tax-phobic states in search of ways to pay for popular government services have recently turned to the cigarette tax.

The benefits that a higher cigarette tax would produce in terms of reduced smoking deaths and improved public health are well-documented in the recommendations included in a recent report from the Kansas Health Policy Authority. But it's the tension such an arrangement would create between efforts to reduce smoking, and efforts to fund health care, that is controversial.

Arkansas this year attempted to pass a similar cigarette tax hike dedicated to funding a new health trauma system. South Carolina pursued similar legislation (eventually vetoed by the Governor) that was designed to direct new cigarette tax hike revenues into a popular health-care expansion.

In each of these cases, legislators were seeking to fund vital programs (each of which naturally increases in cost over time) with a revenue source that is sure to decline with time. South Carolina briefly considered one interesting approach to this problem (indexing the amount of its tax to a measure of medical cost inflation) but that proposal was ultimately dropped from the final bill.

Sustainability issues arise not only from inflation, however, but also from decreases in the popularity of smoking, and increases in the incentives to purchase cigarettes in low-tax areas. This latter component of the sustainability problem, in particular, has received a good bit of attention as of late.

With cigarette tax rates having increased substantially in many parts of the country, the rewards to smokers associated with shopping in low-tax areas have grown. A recent study by Howard Chernick entitled "Cigarette Tax Rates and Revenue" found that a 10% increase in the cigarette tax rate of one state can boost the revenue collections of a neighboring state by about 1%. Maryland provides one stark example of this phenomenon, where a recent tax hike has yielded significantly less than expected as a result of cross-border cigarette purchases and smuggling. The experience of New Hampshire, however, may suggest that this point has only limited applicability (see next story).

Arkansas legislators have put off until next year a proposed 50 cent hike in the cigarette tax from 59 cents per pack to $1.09 per pack. The increase is expected to generate about $71.1 million in state tax revenues. This money would be used to fund a badly-needed state trauma system to respond to emergencies in which victims must be sent quickly to nearby specialists. Arkansas is one of the only states lacking such a vital infrastructure. The trauma system is estimated to cost $25 million a year and the extra revenue would be used to fund community health centers and charitable clinics serving the poor.

Arkansas currently ranks in the middle of its neighboring states in terms of its cigarette tax. If the tax is raised, Arkansas will have the second highest tax in its region, behind only Texas' $1.41 per pack tax. The situation in Maryland last year almost exactly parallels the one that Arkansas is facing this year. When Maryland's cigarette tax was $1.00 per pack, the tax ranked exactly in the middle of those of neighboring states. After the tax doubled to $2.00 per pack, it became the most expensive among Maryland's neighbors.

So what does all this mean? In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Maryland's cigarette tax hike was slammed as a failure because, the author speculated, it did not deter smoking and the state lost sales to nearby Virginia, where a carton is almost $15 cheaper. And as usual, the WSJ misleads its readers with anti-tax rhetoric, implying that higher tax rates decrease tax revenues. But if Arkansas lawmakers take a closer look at the numbers cited in the Wall Street Journal piece, the outlook for their proposed increase appears feasible, at least in the short term.

The editorial states that Maryland's cigarette sales fell 25% after a 100% tax increase. But what is craftily omitted is that this does not mean that tax revenues will fall. In fact, quite the opposite should happen. The tax increase is large enough to offset the fall in sales so much that the state should actually gain 50% more in cigarette tax revenue thanks to the hike. And just as Marylanders descended upon their neighbors to take advantage of cheaper cigarettes, it is highly likely that Arkansans will do the same. But the purpose of the Arkansas tax is to generate at least $25 million each year to fund an essential trauma system, not to deter smoking. Indeed the tax may help to curb the habit, especially among youths but even if smokers in Arkansas leave the state to shop for smokes in Missouri or Mississippi, where the taxes are the lowest in the US, sales within the state are still likely generate a sizeable and sufficient amount of tax revenue because the increase in the tax is so high.

So what is the drawback to this plan? The percentage of smokers in the US, along with the number of cigarettes sold, declines steadily each year. While Arkansas and Maryland risk losing business to neighbors, they also risk losing a sizeable amount of business to quitters and the declining number of new smokers, regardless of the size of their cigarette taxes. This means that an essential program that requires yearly funding cannot be viably sustained by a tax on a product for which demand is shrinking. The policy may be a responsible budgetary decision in the short term, when money is tight and the tax is likely to generate a sufficient amount of revenue. But as time goes on and smoking becomes increasingly unpopular (regardless of price), Arkansas will have to find another way to fund its trauma system.

Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe has called a special session starting Monday to consider a higher severance tax on natural gas. The Governor says that the tax hike will eventually raise as much as $100 million to help pay for state highways. The current level of tax was established in 1957 and is based on the volume of gas extracted. Beebe's proposal would change the tax base to market value, bringing Arkansas in line with what most states have been doing since the 1970s. Basing the tax on market value would ensure that inflation will no longer erode the value of revenues generated by the tax, which is currently providing natural gas companies with an effective tax cut each year. A 2003 ITEP study of the Arkansas natural gas tax found that if the state had imposed a 5 percent tax on the market value of natural gas in 1975 (rather than basing the tax on volume) the state would have raised $610 million between 1975 and 2001, instead of the $13 million it actually collected. For more on the state's severance tax and potential reforms read this report from Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

Higher severance taxes may soon be on the agenda as well in Colorado, where environmental groups and higher education advocates have banded together in support of a ballot initiative to generate $200 million in additional revenue from the oil and gas industries. The proposal would eliminate several severance tax deductions and exemptions, the most notable of which allows companies to write off 87.5 percent of their property tax bills. The revenue generated would go to fund college scholarships and renewable-energy programs, among other things.

Four states - Mississipi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Idaho - are currently debating ways to reduce the sales taxes paid on food. But how (or whether) to pay for the cuts and who should benefit remain key sticking points.

On Thursday, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed (91-27) a "tax swap" bill that would cut the state's sales tax on groceries in half and raise the tax on cigarettes to $1 per pack. The bill still faces significant challenges before becoming law, however, since key members of the Senate oppose it and Governor Haley Barbour vetoed a similar bill last year. Although the plan's reliance on revenue from cigarette taxes is not a long-term solution, it does offer a temporary mechanism to make up the revenue that would be lost from a cut on the sales tax on food.

In Tennessee, a similar "tax swap" is under consideration. However Gov. Phil Bresden has expressed reluctance to link a cigarrette tax increase with a grocery tax reduction, and has instead proposed using revenue from a cigarette tax increase for education funding.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe signed a grocery tax reduction into law on Thursday that will reduce the state's sales tax on groceries from 6% to 3% effective July 1st. However, no funding mechanism was enacted to make up for the decreased revenue, as lawmakers instead decided to rely on a projected surplus to pay for the proposal.

In Idaho, Gov. Butch Otter continues to struggle with the state legislature over how best to enact a grocery tax credit. Otter's proposal would target low-income Idahoans with a credit of up to $90, while the House's newly passed version would give a smaller grocery tax credit (up to $50) to a broader range of residents.

Last week there were three states offering competing tax incentives for a new ThyssenKrupp steel mill. Now there are two; ThyssenKrupp has taken Arkansas out of the running, leaving Alabama and Louisiana as its final two candidates. In a press release announcing the move, the company explained its rationale for dumping Arkansas: "geological conditions, energy costs and logistical disadvantages." Notably absent from its explanation: tax breaks.

And elected officials in the two remaining states seem to agree that non-tax factors set one state apart. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco boasts and, Alabama Governor Bob Riley openly admits, that Louisiana has geographic advantages that Alabama can't match.

But Riley and some state lawmakers are pushing for a special legislative session later this month that would be devoted entirely to creating a new fund for tax incentives for ThyssenKrupp and other companies the state is currently courting. If this sounds like a devious subversion of market forces, it is ... but Louisiana already did the same thing back in December, creating a $300 million fund to court the steelmaker.

How can states short-circuit this self-destructive competition of tax giveaways? Lessons might be learned from efforts by European Union members to prevent tax competition that distorts market forces, which culminated this week in an EU statement that Switzerland must curb its corporate tax giveaways.

Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe and the state senate worked together this week to pass a series of measures aimed at helping low-income Arkansans.The keystone of the tax package was a cut in the state sales tax on groceries from six percent to three percent, one of Governor Beebe's leading campaign proposals.A study by the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families (AACF) projected annual savings for a family of four ranging from $98 to $298, depending on income level.The Governor's Office estimated that the sales tax change would cut state revenues by $252 million this year.Everyone involved in the effort to pass this bill deserves high praise for bringing attention to this important issue.However, research by the AACF using ITEP data indicates that a refundable Earned Income Tax Credit might be an even more effective way to help low-income Arkansans.According to the data, a 24% refundable EITC would cost almost exactly the same as the grocery sales tax exemption, but would provide more assistance to families in need.Arkansas lawmakers should consider a refundable EITC to get the most bang for their tax bucks.

On Wednesday newly elected Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe kept a campaign promise and proposed a cut in the state's sales tax on food. The proposal would cut the state's 6 percent sales tax, as it applies to groceries, by half. The Governor hopes to eventually repeal the tax on food altogether. However, the price tag for this cut is over $200 million and the benefits from this tax cut aren't targeted towards those who need it. Also, despite the state's recent higher-than-expected revenues, many advocates are worried the funding for the tax cut could come from education or other programs.

A similar discussion is taking place in Idaho, where Governor Butch Otter is proposing a more progressive approach to this issue. His proposal would keep the grocery tax and would instead offer a low-income tax credit designed to offset it. For more on the relative merits of exemptions and credits as strategies for making sales taxes less unfair, check out this ITEP Policy Brief.

States that enjoy a large endowment of mineral resources usually levy a severance tax on the extraction of these resources and these taxes are receiving a lot of attention these days. In Colorado the Auditor's office found that many oil and gas companies may not be filing tax returns. Officials in West Virginia worry that coal severance taxes are on the decline there, while advocates in Arkansas say that now is the time for severance tax reform. For more on this, read the report "Digging Deeper," from Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

Several states are debating ways to spend budget surpluses.

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has "tax reformation" plans which include putting more money in a rainy day fund and rebating money to taxpayers in the form of a tax credit.

In response to the surplus in Idaho, legislators are debating ways to shift the tax burden from property taxes to regressive sales taxes.

North Carolina legislators are taking notice of the financial hit that mental health services took during the previous recession and both houses have passed budgets that would provide more funds for these services. Of course, if any of these states had a Colorado-style TABOR policy there wouldn't even be a question about how to spend state surpluses because TABOR takes these important budget decisions out of the hands of elected officials.